Commentary on the ruling on eutanasia. Action for protection of constitutional rights by Ana Estrada Ugarte, against the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Justice, and the Peruvian Social Health Insurance. Supreme Court of Justice of Lima, 11th Constitu
Comentario a sentencia sobre eutanasia. Acción de amparo de Ana Estrada Ugarte, contra Ministerio de Salud, Ministerio de Justicia, y Seguro Social de Salud del Perú. Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima, 11er. Juzgado Constitucional. Sentencia del 22-2-202
Comentário sobre a decisão relativa à eutanásia. Acção Amparo de Ana Estrada Ugarte, contra o Ministério da Saúde, Ministério da Justiça, e o Seguro Social de Saúde Peruano. Tribunal Superior de Justiça de Lima, 11º Tribunal Constitucional. Sentença de 22
| 2021 | |
|
Eutanasia Derecho a la vida Persona Dignidad Derechos humanos Irrenunciabilidad Libertad Euthanasia Right to life Person Dignity Human rights Inalienability Freedom Eutanásia Direito à vida Pessoa Dignidade Direitos humanos Inalienabilidade Liberdade |
|
| Español | |
| Universidad de Montevideo | |
| REDUM | |
|
http://revistas.um.edu.uy/index.php/revistaderecho/article/view/806
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12806/1764 |
|
| Acceso abierto | |
| Atribución 4.0 Internacional |
| Sumario: | A critical analysis is made of the ruling that accepts the action for protection of constitutional rights of Ana Estrada declaring inapplicable, as unconstitutional, the article of the Criminal Code that criminalizes mercy killing (which prohibits euthanasia). The supposed “right to euthanasia” is considered implicit in the “respect for the dignity” of the “human person”. However, it ends up reducing dignity to factual freedom, denying the equal dignity of every human person, basing euthanasia on the perception of unworthiness. This article distinguishes inherent dignity, equal for every human being, and dignified free acts, pointing out that only the latter are the exercise of the right to freedom. It identifies being or personal existence and life of a human being. From this, the minimum duty of respect for dignity, for life or prohibition to kill, and the minimum essential content of the right to life are considered interchangeable. It concludes the primacy of the right to life over the right to liberty. |
|---|
